Is democracy in decline, retreat or under siege? More a work in progress
- Democracy depends on the quality of institutions. It alone does not ensure that the government will be any better in delivering outcomes than any other arrangement
Is democracy in decline, retreat or under siege? In recent times, many have been agonising over a lost golden age of democracy, freedom and the rule-based world order.
The English word democracy comes from the Greek words “demos” (people) and “kratos” (rule). Today, democracy is usually taken to mean a system of government in which the majority rules, with consideration for minority rights.
One of the most well known definitions of democracy is Abraham Lincoln’s “government of the people, for the people and by the people”. But, during his time, women and slaves were not entitled to vote or participate in governance. The crux of the democratic ideal lies in the question, “Who rules?”
The British empire never granted democracy to its colonies (other than white Canada or Australia) until forced to give them independence after it became exhausted by two world wars. Democracy was part of a US tool box that sought to ensure more people would be like Americans, free and equal, at least in theory.
This is not to say that the idea of democracy does not appeal to peoples of different cultures and political backgrounds. The Chinese idea of democracy, first expressed by Sun Yat-sen and embodied in the Three Principles of the People, embraced citizens of a common culture defined by nationalism, governance rights (constitutionality), and people-centred welfare.
In a survey of 50,000 people in 53 countries commissioned by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, 71 per cent of Chinese agreed that China has the right amount of democracy, whereas only 33 per cent of Russians thought Russia had the right amount.
Indeed, 81 per cent of those surveyed from around the world agreed it was important to have democracy in their country. What was remarkable was that 44 per cent of those polled thought that the US threatens democracy in their country, as against Chinese (38 per cent) or Russian (28 per cent) influence. Economic inequality (64 per cent) and big tech companies (48 per cent) were seen as the biggest threats to democracy.
Democracy today is procedural – people vote freely and regularly to choose their government. The best governance arrangement is presumed to be Montesquieu’s doctrine of separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary.
03:15
World shocked by assault on the US Capitol by radical pro-Trump supporters in Washington
In short, democracy depends on the quality of institutions and if these institutions corrode, become politically captured or are unable to deliver what politicians promise, then democracy or whatever ideology is in power is likely to be subject to change, by peaceful or violent means.
Why Hong Kong does not need more democracy right now
In my view, Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) remains spot on.
The 18th-century definition of democracy was an institutional arrangement to realise the common good by delivering “the will of the people”. But how do we define the “common good” and what arrangements ensure that is delivered?
Schumpeter foresaw that “whenever individual wills are much divided, very likely that the political decisions produced will not conform to ‘what people really want’.” That is exactly why people are disillusioned with politics, because politicians are unable to deliver what people really want.
Indeed, what the people want at different times and places may be different. Political leadership is all about understanding the mood of the moment, seizing opportunities and organising institutions to deliver. The trouble is that democracy alone does not ensure that the government will be any better in delivery of outcomes than any other arrangement, such as autocracy.
02:54
Thai pro-democracy and monarchy supporters clash at Bangkok rally
That failure to deliver is why democracy is retreating or at least regrouping. As globalisation, technology, demographics and climate change have made life much more complex, demanding instant decision-making, even the best of the democracies have seen concentration of power in the presidential executive overriding judicial or parliamentary checks.
When institutional checks and balances fail due to corruption, corrosion or incompetence, then new forms of political leadership arise to challenge the old.
We should not fear change, but welcome it.
As F.A. Hayek, the foremost free-market philosopher, wrote in a letter to The Times in 1978, “a limited democracy might indeed be the best protector of individual liberty and be better than any other form of limited government, but an unlimited democracy is probably worse than any other form of unlimited government, because its government loses the power even to do what it thinks right if any group on which its majority depends thinks otherwise”.
Democracy is a work in progress, not carved in stone to be worshipped. Each country and community has to find its own form of democracy to arrive at what is best for the community as a whole. To survive, it has to meet the Darwinian test of evolutionary competition from many different modes of governance. Charles Darwin never talked of survival of the best, only the fittest.
Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own
